Montana Funk (00:13):
This is Young Lawyer Rising, brought to you by the ABA Young Lawyers Division and produced by Maureen Media. Welcome back listeners. This is your host, Montana Funk. Today I'm joined by Dr. Chris Spaeth. Dr. Spaeth has a PhD in cell and molecular biology with a focus on neuroscience, toxicology and pharmacology. Dr. Spaeth has also worked at a leading cosmetology company and has been a toxicologist for almost six years. I'm so excited to have him on for today's show. Well, I'm so excited about this episode. It's something different that we haven't done yet in terms of actually, I mean we've had a lot of people who aren't necessarily lawyers, but this is something where someone's involved in the legal system at times, but not in the typical role of an attorney or a paralegal or a judge. So that's kind of, I guess a foreshadowing for our group of listeners here. But just to start this episode off, I kind of want to get you to introduce yourself in terms of what you do and how you actually got involved in that role.
Chris Spaeth (01:19):
So I went to college at Villanova University. I wanted to study science, and I was kind of inspired by these great scientists who worked in the lab and made these amazing discoveries. And I wanted to be one, but I wasn't very good at math. So I took a lot of math courses at Villanova and then took basically my electives in science geared towards getting me into a lab position. I went to UT Austin till 2011. I received my PhD in cell and molecular biology where I focused on neuroscience, toxicology and pharmacology, and that kind of got me into science. And then afterwards I moved to Dallas to do a postdoctoral fellowship at UT Southwestern Medical Center. Spent about six years there in the neuroscience department, kind of continuing my work from a different angle that I did in grad school. And then sometime fourth, fifth year of my postdoc, I kind of wanted my science to matter more.
(02:18):
I was studying fruit flies and I discovered some cool things, but my science didn't really matter. I was still 20 years away from any of this helping anybody. You always want your science to matter. So I ended up leaving my postdoc and went to work for Mary Kay Cosmetics. I wanted to use my science to directly affect the people who wore the makeup. And then after about two and a half years at Mary Kay, I was doing a lot of repetitive things. It was great that my science mattered, but it was also boring, reviewing the same cosmetic ingredients over and over again. So I was looking for something that would keep me stimulated and advance my science. And I applied for a role for toxicology consultant down in Houston. That's what I've been doing since then is using all these science tools that I've picked up along the way to explain how my science can affect people in largely litigation scenarios.
Montana Funk (03:20):
So what exactly for our listeners is if you had to describe the science of toxicology in simple terms, how would you describe what toxicology is?
Chris Spaeth (03:31):
Yeah, so toxicology is the study of poisons. What you're investigating is the dose of the poison, how it gets into your body, the route of exposure, what your body does to it once it's inside, and then how long it takes for that poison to come out of your body. I say poisons because any chemical can be a toxin. It's just the dose and the exposure.
Montana Funk (03:56):
Okay. So you said before that you were using your science in some areas of litigation. How, I guess I should say even when did you realize that you could actually take your love for science and what you're learning and actually apply it to an area such as the law?
Chris Spaeth (04:15):
Realistically, my first day as a consultant, I have to say, I didn't fully understand what I applied to or what I was going to be doing. I had it described to me, but day one I received a packet of documents from a case, a civil case, and I was asked, well, this person was exposed to this toxin in their food and then they got sick. Does this match up? Does this make sense? And so I had to go through the medical files. And so I started from that day applying it to the law.
Montana Funk (04:47):
So you kind of just jumped into becoming this expert, so to speak, without even realize, oh man, I actually am now going to be the person that people are relying on to do this research, it sounds like.
Chris Spaeth (05:00):
Absolutely.
Montana Funk (05:01):
I know you mentioned the first case was civil, and I want to talk a little bit more about the whole process that you go through when you actually get a case. And I want to do that. I want to take a quick break, but when we come back, I do want to kind of just delve into that a little bit more. Sounds great. So you said, I think you said it was like the first couple of days or maybe right when you started your job, you get a civil case and then you're told, okay, is this lineup? And I think a lot of the times we see on TV and we see in the criminal shows law and order, stuff like that. You see those big cases where there's an expert, there's a toxicologist, and they have a coroner who does a report and stuff like that. And it's interesting, I think that for the most part, people who aren't involved in your line of work just think of it in terms of that. But can you explain to the listeners how you said the civil standpoint, what really is the majority of the work that you do as a toxicologist?
Chris Spaeth (05:59):
When I started, I pictured it as criminal as well, but I would say 90 to 95% of my work is civil. I have a couple of criminal cases and they're fun, but they're different than the way they move. And I didn't know this. I'm not a lawyer, but the whole purpose of a toxicology expert is to take that science that I discussed, that basis of toxicology, and then apply it in these legal settings to explain, well, this makes sense. This doesn't make sense. And there's a lot of civil litigation out there where people are taking drugs. There's drugs that come back in a tax report. Did that drug cause the accident? If so, how can I prove that? If not, how can I prove that? And that's kind of the standard that I'm looking at. And so I do a lot of drug and alcohol work.
(06:54):
I think you know that I think our first case, we did one case together and it was a methamphetamine intox. Now my job is to take all that evidence in. What does the tox report say? What can I glean from the medical files? There will be evidence of methamphetamine in your system, independent of the tox report, such as increased blood pressure, maybe liver enzymes are elevated. Maybe you'll see white blood cells changing. Now maybe there'll be a brain scan. Long-term meth users have definitive holes in their brain on brain scans. So you look for all this evidence, combine it with the circumstances of the accident. Are these actions consistent with somebody who may or may not have been intoxicated by meth? You kind of put all that together to come up with an opinion as to was this individual intoxicated by meth or impaired by meth at the time of the accident in such a way that it was involved in the accident somehow.
Montana Funk (07:53):
So let's say our listeners are tuning in and they're thinking, okay, I have a case whether it's civil or criminal, and they're like, I think that potentially a toxicologist could be good for this, but I don't know. It's not a standard, let's say schedule two substance, but something different. How would a lawyer who's listening and thinking, do I need a toxicologist? How would you give them advice to go about actually reaching out to one, finding one, even making that initial inquiry of is this something I even need for this case?
Chris Spaeth (08:22):
Take this with a grain of salt. For what it's worth, I always think you should call the toxicologist. If you have a question, if there is some chemical that may have affected somebody in some way, call the toxicologist. Usually the initial calls in my practice, I don't bill for 'em. If you're just calling to say, Hey, this person touched this chemical and then they have an injury that they're attributing to the chemical, if I know what the chemical is, I can give you a quick heads up as to, well, that chemical's a nerd. It wouldn't have caused that. Or, oh, that chemical is pretty dangerous and they probably shouldn't have touched it. Same with drugs. We found this drug in their system, be it illicit or prescription. Does this drug cause problems? I've answered that question on blood thinners, on antidepressants without illegal narcotics. I do a lot of THC work.
Montana Funk (09:18):
Interesting. Okay.
Chris Spaeth (09:19):
And a lot of times we'll get a positive THC result on a urine test and they'll say, well, does that mean they were impaired? Well, I have no idea. It's usually the answer. And it goes into understanding the specifics of the chemical you're talking about.
Montana Funk (09:38):
So do you think on your side of things being the expert, is there anything that you've seen from an attorney that has made you maybe proceed with caution taking a case? Or is there advice you have to attorneys listening that you can give them about how you actually go about creating a relationship with somebody that you want to retain?
Chris Spaeth (09:59):
The biggest thing for me is let me be objective. I want to look at the data. I love hearing your case summary, but I'm not going to say what you want me to say just because you want me to say it. My job is to look at all the evidence and come up with a conclusion based on that science. Sometimes there's information that clarifies, but don't tell me I want this opinion. Can you give it to me? I'm probably going to say no even if I could just because that's not the type of attorney I want to work with. And I know in the case we worked together, the opinions that I gave were not all positive for you. You knew the bad news, you knew the good news. I want to be able to deliver both. And I think that's the best way to develop a relationship is to understand this is good, this is bad. And then you form a way to proceed in your own case. Yeah, I'm here to deliver the science. The second part comes into the Daubert fry standards. It's my understanding that there's a lot of Daubert challenges that happen,
(11:15):
And I don't always know about them for me. Sometimes they're dismissed. But I did have an attorney who never told me about one and tried to handle it himself. And I found out a year later, oh gosh, I'm still angry about that. And it wasn't a true Daubert, it was an affidavit used for summary judgment, but he just never told me that this was all going down. He never got additional information from me. He never even informed me that another court was hearing my opinion. So yeah, let me know if things are happening with the case. And the last thing, this happens a lot, and I do my absolute best to accommodate. They usually need more than a week to write a report of review files. SAS are calling me with four days before expert deadline. I'll try. I promise. I'll try, but I don't like doing it. I'm usually up for four straight days.
Montana Funk (12:11):
Yeah,
Chris Spaeth (12:12):
Days not cold.
Montana Funk (12:13):
Yeah, no, you're a nice person to do that. I think a lot of people would not be willing to do that.
Chris Spaeth (12:19):
It's unpleasant.
Montana Funk (12:20):
No, I can't imagine. I mean, I could also assume from your perspective, if a lawyer's hearing from an expert that's saying, yeah, I'll tell you whatever you want to hear. I will tell me what you want in this report and I'll write it. Do you think that those attorneys should be taking a step back and maybe be a little bit weary if they're hearing that from someone?
Chris Spaeth (12:39):
Absolutely. If you ask somebody tell me this opinion, and they're like, of course this is my right, I would be wary. It's the science that matters and I can't tell you exactly what the science is until I've seen everything.
Montana Funk (12:56):
Right. It seems kind of like one, there would probably be some ethical issues there if you're asking your expert to write something, whether or not it's true, and it also seems self-serving in a way to give someone an answer. Because as you're saying, if this is all about science, then it should be backed by science as they say. And if you're getting an answer that's not, how can you then support that? Especially if I'm sure in your position you're called to testify or have a report you need to defend. I can imagine it gets difficult if there are people who are just putting whatever in there and it's not actually what the research is saying.
Chris Spaeth (13:35):
Absolutely. It definitely becomes a problem. And I've been asked to rebut other experts reports. Those are easy rebuttals to write in a lot of ways, but they're never fun. I always feel bad doing them.
Montana Funk (13:49):
Absolutely. And you've mentioned a couple of different things that you've done, and I think this is a good segue because I want to take a break, but I do want to make sure we touch on what you actually can do in your whole area of work. So let's take a quick break and then let's jump into that. One of the things you had mentioned earlier was a deposition, and you've also mentioned testifying and reports. So obviously that's a lot of different areas and I think once again, kind of going back to what we see on tv, a lot of people hear the word expert and they just think, oh, they're going to testify to something on the stand in a trial. Can you explain to our listeners what you actually do, the array of areas that you actually can touch on? I know that it's not just testifying at a trial, but I think there's so many resources you can offer that people may just not know, especially young lawyers who are just now getting in to doing these processes, whether it's in civil or criminal litigation.
Chris Spaeth (14:49):
Absolutely. So I think a good way to kind of go about answering this is it feels sort of like a day in the life of a toxicology expert question. And really most of my job is reviewing documents and I'll get case files and I'll read them depositions that are relevant. I'll read them. I'm in a position now where I can bring in younger consultants to do the depo summaries for me and I'll still read them. I'll always meet them to understand what's going on, but then they'll provide a summary for my report. But a big part of my job is staying up to date with the science. Science is a process, and I've said that before. It's not an end result. It's not an answer. It's a way to move forward. And so we talked about, we did a methamphetamine case together. Well, if you called me today and said, I have a guy who's on meth help, I'd have to go back to the methamphetamine literature because it's been a couple of years since we did that. The science is always moving. There's new discoveries happening all the time, and I need to stay up to date on the most current science. So when I'm not working a case or sometimes when I am working a case, I'll go through and stay up to date on the science literature of the pertinent things for that case or for the areas that fit under my expertise. Now definitely drugs and alcohol and also on the cosmetic side, I had that experience.
Montana Funk (16:24):
You are explaining all these things that you can do. Right. It sounds like there's a lot more that you can do than just testimony.
Chris Spaeth (16:31):
Testifying is probably the least likely activity for me to perform in a given month if I'm deposed the rate that I'm going, it's about a deposition every two months and a trial every six months or so. Usually these things in the civil realm get settled before going to trial anyway, so it's my report, it's conversations. I am on the phone a lot. I'm an introvert, so it's kind of tiring, but you get my full attention when we're doing that and I explain, this is what I've found, this is what I know, this is what I don't know. I like keeping my clients up to date every couple of weeks if we haven't touched base, we'll set a touch base. Hey, this is where we are. I need this. Do you have that? When's a depo coming? I have some clients who really, when I help them write depo questions, especially when they're talking to, I spoke about THC earlier and that was on purpose.
(17:32):
When I am working with a client and they haven't deposed the potential user of THC, I want them to try to narrow down on when it was. How often do you use, what'd you use that day? Was it before you got in the car? Was it before work? Was it after work? Kind of narrowed down so I can get a window. I do the same thing for drinking. I need to create a timeline. When did you consume alcohol? When did you stop? I also helping them write questions for opposing experts. And now you want to sound knowledgeable when you're asking them and we've read their report. This is the obfuscation that they could make if I find one or this is the part where they misinterpreted or this is the part where we disagree on, this is where you should pin 'em down. So we do a lot of those calls. Those are fun.
Montana Funk (18:18):
Fun. I was going to say fun. I mean, do you think that, and we briefly talked about when you hear from an expert that's just going to jump to whatever conclusion you want, but do you think that there's also other things attorneys should be looking for when finding experts that would also give you caution? Because I know you're talking about staying up to date with science and having these conversations being timely, right? There's sure people who are going to come across experts who maybe not be as legitimate as a source as others. And do you have any opinions that you can offer or advice to the attorneys listening who maybe they get one of their partners says, Hey, go find an expert on this, right? It was something that I had to do when I was starting out and that you can tell them, Hey, look, these are the things you should probably watch for that. Maybe make it that that person is not necessarily super legitimate.
Chris Spaeth (19:09):
Absolutely. I think that there are some things. One of the biggest things is to take a look at their cv. Do they have experience that can be related in a way? An example, I studied neuroscience. I know how neurons work and I was trained in understanding the mechanism of action of drugs, but also of all neurons. So it's an example. You want to talk to a geologist about neuroscience, well, maybe you made a mistake, right? They shouldn't be opining on that, right? So you always want to think about the lane that you're trying to get the answer from. I am not a medical doctor. I can't diagnose. So if you're asking me, can you look at this person and tell me do they have these symptoms? No. And if you're asking somebody who's not a medical doctor to do that and they agreed you have a problem, and so a lot of it is paying attention to their background and understanding what is their lane. So that's really the goal. You have to do a little bit of work on the front end to say, I need a toxicologist. I need an expert to do drug and alcohol work. Probably don't call a geologist. Just because they have a PhD behind their name doesn't mean they're an expert in the field. You want them to. The PhD really means that you have an amazing depth in one part of the world and maybe not as much breadth.
Montana Funk (20:38):
I have one more easy question for you, but I just want to make sure before I end with that, I want to give the listeners an overview and I want to make sure that I'm understanding correctly to the process that you go to actually retain an expert and it's sounding like correct me if I'm wrong, that once you find the one that you're saying, okay, this is a good fit, then a good expert, someone who is reliable would say, okay, I need more information before I can just give you an answer. Do some follow-up research check again, because like you're saying, science is always changing. And then from what here, it sounds like you would give them an oral report if that's great, go to the written report and then is that when you potentially would go to testimony as if they needed you to actually testify about that report? Sometimes
Chris Spaeth (21:22):
Some states don't have report requirements.
Montana Funk (21:25):
Interesting.
Chris Spaeth (21:25):
I don't remember those states. Not my job. So I just,
Montana Funk (21:31):
I don't know them and it is my
Chris Spaeth (21:32):
Job. I just kind go with what I'm told. In some cases you need a report, some cases you don't need a report. Some cases it's my call. I'll probably always want to write a report on things considered, right? Yeah. Kind of the process. I'll get an initial call, Hey, is this something you can do? Is this something I get a lot of? Is this in your wheelhouse? And that's kind of the place I like to be. I don't want to go out on limbs. If it does feel like a limb, I'll find somebody for you. Or I will talk about the parts that I can do and say, I can only do this part for you. Once that's agreed and approved and either the client to your client approves to my rates and that kind of thing and my CV and think this is good, then I could be retained. Some experts do have retainers that they would collect prior. I generally don't. More of a, my policy is if you want to retain me for a second case where you didn't pay on the first case, probably get a retainer. Yeah. That's really the only reason why I like getting retainers and most all good consultants should return whatever's not used on the retainer if they can't help. And I've had to do that before where I get a case, get a retainer, can't really help charge usually less than half an hour to be like, Nope, can't do this. Here's your money back. My company hated me for it,
(23:09):
For just
Montana Funk (23:09):
Being nice and giving them
Chris Spaeth (23:10):
Back the money that you didn't use.
(23:12):
But honesty matters and I believe that truth, honesty, science, all that stuff matters. So after the retention process goes through, then I'll get the case documents. So one real big piece of advice that I have is don't send the expert all your case files until they've cleared conflicts. Otherwise you'll conflict them out. So initially for those first conversations, all I want is the petition or the complaint. Let me run my conflict, wait until it's cleared, then send me stuff. I always say that it doesn't always happen. I've never been conflicted out because of it, but I know that it could happen,
Montana Funk (23:58):
Right? Yeah. You never
Chris Spaeth (23:59):
Know, especially some of these civil cases where there's lots and lots of defendants. Maybe I'm already working for the restaurant or the trucking company and you're coming in with the second truck that was involved in the multi-car crash rollover because of messing coke.
Montana Funk (24:17):
Okay,
Chris Spaeth (24:18):
It's
Montana Funk (24:18):
Happening. Okay, so retain conflict, check, then retain, and then you can kind of get to
Chris Spaeth (24:24):
Work and then I can get to work on the files. In terms of files, I don't need everything all the time. I always say the more data the better. But a good example is rehab files. If we're looking at an intox accident, I don't need long thousands of pages of the rehab the next year, probably not going to inform me on whether or not they were intoxicated at the time of the accident. If you want me to actually talk about those and see did they continue to use drugs that impacted the rehab, then send me the rehab. But usually I'll just ignore 'em.
(25:05):
And so once I see all that, then I'll go into the science and do my lit searches. Scientific journal articles are essential if they're citing things that aren't scientific journal articles, if it's like USA today or TikTok or I'm using terrible lingo, good lord. But there are scientific journals that are good. Your experts should be citing those and referencing those. And that's what I'll do is go to the National Library of Medicine online pubmed.gov and start looking for papers and papers that generally are consistent with, not generally, but need to be consistent with the science. Not all science is going to agree on everything all the time, but you're looking at what is the major direction the science is going and that's vital. And then once all that's done and I have my science papers and my summaries done, we'll have a conversation about, Hey, these are my opinions. Usually I like to have a minimum of three I think. So most I've had is 14.
Montana Funk (26:13):
Wow.
Chris Spaeth (26:13):
Multi-drug. You break down each drug into aep, each drug, and then you put 'em all together and then I write the report and after that wait for a deposition. And then usually there's mediation and then most of the times they settle. And if they don't, then we go to trial.
Montana Funk (26:35):
It is really interesting to see everything you can do, and I don't think a lot of people actually really know, which is why I was so excited to have you on because having an expert in a lot of cases, like I said, whether civil or criminal really can help your case, especially the bigger cases. It really can make it or break it to have that because it is so much easier to go into a mediation or a trial and say, this is our opinion, and not only is it an opinion from us, it's literally backed by science and here's why. So it's such an important thing I think that a resource people need to start using and having relationships with people like you. I and I have think now known each other for probably about five years, but I think it's huge. Right? Then you said you can refer to other people if it doesn't work for you to be the person on that case.
(27:21):
And it really is just such a, I mean just having people like you is just such an amazing thing to have and is so helpful I think for so many people in the legal world who just don't realize. So I appreciate it. I appreciate the work you do. I appreciate you coming on today for this episode. I am very excited to have something a little bit different than what we usually do on here. And like I said, it's awesome to have people like you in our corner, and you're always going to know a heck of a lot more than I will ever know when it comes to science. So are you able, and this is like I said, the easy question for you to give our listeners a couple of resources where they can find you, whether it to be to retain you, whether it be to just get more information, just where they can go if they need somewhere to start.
Chris Spaeth (28:02):
Yeah, I do have a LinkedIn. It's my name, Christopher Space. Just look for the, it's the same headshot that's on the podcast title. Then my email is C-S-P-A-E-T-H@ramboll.com. You can shoot me an email, set up a meeting, set up a call. I'm happy to do that if you have any questions. Other resources, there are expert finding services that people use. I think I'm on expert info.com is one. You got to be careful with those.
Montana Funk (28:36):
So
Chris Spaeth (28:37):
Yeah,
Montana Funk (28:37):
It's the same as find your lawyer.com.
Chris Spaeth (28:39):
Yeah, exactly. You don't necessarily, the vetting process for them is different, so it does help to know somebody for sure, and I can't speak to everybody on any of these expert finder websites. Sometimes you have to pay a fee for it, and what I can say is I do know not just toxicologists, I know accident reconstructionists, so if there's any way I can direct you or whatever, you know me, I'm happy to do so.
Montana Funk (29:08):
Well, listeners, that is our show. Thank you as always for tuning in. If you like what you heard today, please recommend our show to a friend. We can be found anywhere you listen to podcasts. Until next time, this is your host Montana Funk, and you've been listening to Young Lawyer Rising, brought to you by the ABA Young Lawyers Division and produced by Moraine Media.
